Category Archives: News commentary

The New York Times Magazine has discovered what everyone who has ever been to a Tea Party meeting already knew: tea parties are a coalition of social conservatives and libertarians. Both are fiscally conservative and so the tea parties focus on fiscal issues and agree to disagree on social issues.

Does this mean the tea parties are losing influence? No, but it does mean that the tea parties will have little influence on the Republican presidential nomination (which can’t be counted as a loss of influence because they never influenced one before). Both sides dislike Romney, but the social conservatives support Santorum while the libertarians support Paul.

Unfortunately for those who are not neoconservatives, that means Romney is likely to be the nominee. But the Antiplanner doesn’t think the president is as important as Congress, and the tea parties are likely to remain influential in many Congressional and local elections.

Continue reading →

The Obama administration’s rejection of the Keystone pipeline was predictably stupid and will do little to protect the environment other than by slightly increasing world oil prices. Opponents made it clear that they didn’t care about the negligible environmental impacts of the pipeline; they just wanted to “keep the tar sands in the soil.”

The existence of tar sands refutes the frequent assertion that oil is going to become fantastically expensive in the near future. The Alberta tar sands are estimated to be the second-largest petroleum deposit in the world, but are ignored by those who want “peak oil,” who focus only on the liquid oil that has historically been our main source of petroleum. Extracting liquid oil costs less than extracting tar-sands oil, but since extraction costs form only a fraction of the cost of gasoline, access to tar-sands oil is going to keep gasoline affordable for a long time.

Continue reading →

One of the Occupy Wall Street slogans was “corporations are not people.” But what does this mean? People have a variety of rights, including the right to sign (and be obligated by) contracts, the right to free speech, and the right to vote. When the Supreme Court decided that corporations are persons (as it did in 1819), the court meant that corporations have some of these rights (such as the right to sign contracts), but not others (such as the right to vote, which is reserved to “citizens,” not “people”).

When Mitt Romney said, “Corporations are people, my friend,” he didn’t mean it in a legal sense but in the sense that corporations are made up of people and corporate profits eventually end up in the hands of at least some of those people.

The question is: where do we draw the line? If we deny corporations the right to contract, then corporations could not exist, as the whole point of corporations is for investors and managers to contract with one another. While some may think eliminating corporations is a good idea, without corporations most goods would be a lot more expensive and it is likely that wealth would be even more concentrated in the hands of a few because only those with wealth would be able to invest in productive activities that could return large profits.

Continue reading →

The Iowa caucuses highlighted a little-known fact about the Republican Party: it is really a coalition of three different groups. First and best-known are the “conservatives,” represented by Rick Santorum and the 25 percent of Iowa caucuses who voted for him. Conservatives tend to be fiscally conservative, but are more reliably socially conservative, meaning they tend to oppose such things as gay rights, abortion, and recreational drugs.

The second group is the libertarians, represented by Ron Paul and the 21 percent of the caucuses who voted for him (although Gary Johnson, who was ignored by the media and the party, is closer to being a true libertarian). Perhaps even more than conservatives, the libertarians are hard-core fiscal conservatives. But they are social liberals, favoring gay rights, legalization of recreational drugs, and (for the most part) legalized abortions.

The difference between conservatives and libertarians was brought out in the late 1960s, when David Nolan created the Nolan chart, defining political beliefs along two axes instead of the traditional “liberal-conservative” axis. Nolan’s chart pointed out that the fact that someone was fiscally conservative or liberal did not necessarily predict whether they would be socially conservative or liberal.

Continue reading →